TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent Even as the PAP regime is busy mass importing foreigners from China and India to replace native Singaporeans, New Zealand is actively seeking out Singaporeans to live, study and work there. Immigration New Zealand (INZ) started a pilot project in January this year to specifically attract young Singaporeans and nearly 80 percent of the 5,687 registrants by last week are Singapoeans. An INZ spokesperson said Singapore was chosen because of "long—standing and friendly" relations between the two countries, as well as "close political and economic ties" and research found that Singaporeans are a "good demographic match" for the campaign in terms of language and educationi levels. The official of the INZ website reads: "We are looking for young Singaporeans interested in the challenge, experiences and fun of living in a country that offers you brilliant work and study experiences plus a relaxed lifestyle! .....New Zealand’s a growing nation, and with a population similar to Singapore but 385 times larger in land mass, you’ll find unique holiday opportunities throughout the country – from beaches to mountain tops, sprawling urban to gently rolling countryside  -- and work experiences across all industries. Or, if you prefer, you could take advantage of our many world-class universities and tertiary institutions." Sociologist Tan Ern Ser was quoted in Channel News Asia as saying that INZ "may be attempting to attract Singaporeans to try living and working in New Zealand first, before considering a more long—term arrangement" and it could be attracted to Singaporeans as they are thought to be diligent, efficient and have a good command of English. His views were echoed two weeks ago by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng who told Parliament that New Zealand and Australia are targeting Singaporeans "because we are honest and hardworking" which contrasts what was said by his uncle-in-law Lee Kuan Yew two months earlier. In a widely publicized interview with the National Geographic magazine, Lee reportedly said that it is a "good thing" that Singapore has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants (from mainland China) as they are more "hard-driving" and "hard-striving" than locals. He also described Singaporeans as being "daft" should they cast a protest vote against the PAP regime in the next general election. Due to the PAP's liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies, foreigners now make up 36 percent of Singapore's population, up from 14 percent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 percent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas. Too many foreigners were allowed into Singapore within too short a period of time and Singapore is now experiencing a headache on how to integrate all of them. Furthermore, many of them hail from the poor inland provinces of China and are unable to speak a single word of English. Yet, they are able to obtain Singapore PR and citizenships easily much to the chagrin of Singaporeans. Unable to vote out the increasingly unpopular PAP regime, many Singaporeans are beginning to vote with their feet instead. An interview conducted by the Straits Times in 2007 revealed that more than 50 percent of young Singaporeans harbored thoughts of emigrating elsewhere. Australia and New Zealand are favourite emigration destinations for Singaporeans due to their proximity to Singapore, relaxed lifestyle and large number of Singaporeans living there. For every educated and qualified Singaporean who emigrates, the PAP is importing one uneducated peasant from mainland China to replace him/her. The PAP seems unable to understand the basic fact that human beings need security more than anything else and few people will be interested to slog like dogs for their entire lives in Singapore only to find that they do not have enough savings for retirement. The Chinese who flocked to Singapore to work are all economic migrants who cannot survive back home. Do we see Chinese from Hong Kong, Taiwan or the affluent Chinese cities of Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou rushing to relocate to Singapore en masse? In fact, according to a Gallup poll done July last year, the top three emigration destinations for college Chinese students were the United States, France and South Korea. Singapore isn't even featured among the top five nations. As INZ has shown, Singaporeans need not be afraid of being squeezed out by the foreigners brought in by the PAP regime to shore up its flagging support base - they are highly sought after by countries all over the world. Visit the INZ website here  Read More →

OPINION The recent parliamentary "debates" showcased the utter stupidity, incompetence and impotence of the PAP MPs to the whole of Singapore such that even the spin doctors of the Straits Times are having a hard time trying to polish up their embattled public image. When Singaporeans are fretting over increased competition from foreign workers, increased cost of living, sky-rocketing HDB flat prices, an uncertain future and dwindling CPF savings, PAP MPs are busy scratching the backs of one another in Parliament on hairdos, triumph bras, frog tales, food museums and more ways to make the foreigners happy in Singapore! Some are caught sleeping on camera like the Minister in charge of productivity Teo Chee Hean and of all people, the Speaker of Parliament Mr Abdullah Tarmugi himself. One reader who attended the parliamentary proceedings last week wrote: "I attended the parliamentary proceedings last Tuesday. The speaker was too rigid in the time allocation for the various ministries and as a result limited the follow-up exchanges between the MPs and ministers. The Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi was very sleepy on that day.. and had to be woken up by the clerk after Hawazi Daipi (Parliamentary Secretary for MOH) finished his reply! He took some time to realise where he was and to choose the MPs for the follow-up questions." No wonder there are no more LIVE coverage of parliamentary "debates" and the speeches are all scripted and prepared beforehand. The MPs send their questions to the various ministers who will prepare the answers to be read out during parliament. Even secondary school students can do better than them. Why not do away with the "wayang" and have the ministers replied directly to the MPs in writing then? That will save Singapore taxpayers quite alot of money. For a small country of 5 million people or 3.6 million citizens, Singapore has an unusually large number of MPs or 1 MP per 42,857 citizens. Do we really need so many MPs? Let us compare the size of our parliament with other Asian democracies: 1. Malaysia: Number of elected MPs: 222 in Dewan Rakyat Population (2009): 27 million. MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 121,621 Monthly allowance of MP: S$2,500 2. Japan: Number of MPs: 480 in House of Representatives Population: 127 million. MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 264,583 3. South Korea: Number of MPs: 290 in National Assembly Population: 49.5 million. MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 170,689 4. Republic of China (Taiwan) Number of MPs: 113 in Legislative Yuan Population: 22.9 million. MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 202,654 5. Thailand Number of MPs: 480 in National Assembly Population: 62 million MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 129,167 6. Indonesia Number of MPs: 690 in People's Consultative Assembly Population: 238 million MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 344,928 [Source: Wikipedia] As we can see from the above estimated figures, Singapore has the highest MP to citizen ratio among democratic states in Asia. Why do we need so many MPs to govern a small island only 700 plus square kilometers in size with only 3.6 million citizens? If we apply the MP to citizen ratio of Malaysia here, only 30 MPs are needed in Singapore. Our MPs are doing less work than MPs of other countries and yet they are more highly paid. Are they less capable and efficient than their counterparts elsewhere? PAP MPs are getting the best deal in the world for the following reasons: 1. They are paid $13,000 for a part-time job on top of their full-time jobs and multiple directorships on the boards of various companies. The monthly median salary of an average Singaporean is only $2,600 in 2009. 2. Other than the weekly Meet-the-People sessions which they frequently delegate to grassroots leaders to manage, PAP MPs do not have to travel very often or far to meet their constituents. Lim Kit Siang, the Malaysian MP for Ipoh has to deal with a population of nearly 100,000 on top of commuting frequently between Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur and Penang where he lives. 3. The ministers and MPs of other democracies are often grilled by the opposition lawmakers to the extent that fights even break out sometimes. There is literally no opposition in Parliament to challenge the PAP MPs who are so bored that they are often caught yawning or sleeping in Parliament after apple-polishing one another! It was reported that one former PAP MP Davinder Singh made less than 10 speeches during his 18 years in Parliament! Since the PAP MPs keep exhorting Singaporeans to be "cheaper, faster and better", why can't they walk their talk and show us how to be "cheaper, faster and better" themselves first? We propose that the number of seats in Parliament to be halved from the present 84 to 42 and the monthly allowance of MPs to be decreased by more than 75 percent to $3,000. At present, the MP allowances cost Singaporeans $1,092,000 million dollars monthly. Under our proposed scheme, it will cost only $126,000 which will save us $966,000 monthly or $11.6 million dollars a year. The extra savings can then be channeled to the Public Assistance (PA) scheme to increase its monthly allowance and coverage to help more needy and destitute Singaporeans. MPs are supposed to serve the interests of the people and to speak up for them in Parliament. They should not make a profit or living out of it, not when their allowances are funded by taxpayers' monies. The PAP needs to use such high pay to entice talented people to join them because few Singaporeans are interested to be involved in politics due to the repressive political climate in Singapore. Under a completely open, fair and liberal political system, there will be no shortage of capable Singaporeans stepping forward to volunteer their services to the nation. No real talented person or leader will be keen to become a "yes-man" in service of the PAP regime. Without any genuine debates in Parliament, the Singapore parliamentary system is becoming a farce and laughing stock to the rest of the world. The major policy decisions are often made behind closed doors by senior leaders of the PAP after which they are put to a vote in Parliament which will always go through since PAP controls 82 out of 84 seats. It is therefore apt to describe Singapore's Parliament as a rubber-stamped Parliament which makes one wonder if we are living in a modern democracy or an one-party totalitarian state. Singaporeans have been paying for this grand "wayang" for the last 50 years. Are you still willling to put up with it in the future?   Read also: 1. Why PAP MPs are no more but a “wayang” in Parliament 2. 10 most unforgettable quotes by PAP MPs in the recent parliamentary debates 3. PAP MPs complain that recent parliamentary "debates" are too fast  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent In a sign that the establishment is starting to have doubts on the profitability of Singapore's two integrated resorts (IRs), the Straits Times published an unusual article today containing an interview with gaming and hospitality consultant Mr Ronald Tan who sounded the alarm bells of the long-term prospects of the IRs. Mr Tan opined that both Genting or Sands are unlikely to exceed their forecasts of US$1 billion each in revenue from the casinos within a year due to the high overhead costs of over $13 billion dollars for both. Construction of the two IRs began in 2006 amid a construction boom which saw rising prices of sand and manpower exacerbated by the ban of the sale of sale to Singapore by neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. The grand plan to allow casinos in Singapore was announced and implemented swiftly by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong with no consultation with Singaporeans, a significant proportion remains opposed to their presence here. Some are now questioning the wisdom of having two casinos built together at the same time in a small place like Singapore.  "Instead of allowing both casinos to open in a more relaxed way during the first few years, the IRs are now under tremendous pressure.....the road ahead is 'no bed of roses'," Mr Tan said. His pessismistic view was echoed a few weeks ago by Las Vegas Sands Chief Operating Officer Michael Leven who told Reuters that LVS will need to generate at least US$400 million in EBITDA from Marina Bay Sands in a bid to meet debt covenants. “We’re accumulating cash … the only risk is if Singapore doesn’t do well. We have to do $400 million in EBITDAR to clear covenants. If we don’t do that, we’ve made a bad investment in Singapore,” he added. (EBITDAR definition: Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization and Rent. An approximate measure of a company’s operating cash flow based on data from the company’s income statement. Calculated by looking at earnings before the deduction of interest expenses, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and rent. Similar to, but less common than, Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization.) LVS will operate the second casino in Singapore at Marina Bay whose opening has been delayed repeatedly due to financial problems faced by the parent company in the United State. Ronnie Chan, chairman of Hang Lung Properties Ltd., Hong Kong’s fifth-biggest developer by market value, said last September in a Bloomberg Forum in Hong Kong that the two casino-resorts in Singapore will fail because they won’t be able to attract high-rollers: “The big rollers are what make money in casinos, they will never come to Singapore, it’s a family entertainment” location. You think big-rollers will go to Singapore where they have teeth and fangs coming out sideways? There are too many rules. I was in Sentosa island, I really think that it’s going to be a flop…..The whole integrated entertainment industry, I’m worried for them. The good thing about Singapore is that if you flop, you’re given a second chance,” he said. Mr Tan warned that not all casinos are profitable quoting the example of Melbourne's Crown Casino which suffered substantial losses for two years straight after it opened in 1997. He also harbored doubts about the profitability of the other non-casino attractions such as the Universal Theme Park: "Many Singapore attractions, from Tang Dynasty Village to Haw Par Villa, flopped because of the heat and humidity. The majority of Universal's attractions are outdoors, which means people have to wait in line under the hot sun. If even Hong Kong, a temperate country, cannot succeed with Disneyland with its huge China hinterland," he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. Mr Tan should not worry too much and remember what Ronnie Chan had said earlier: "The good thing about Singapore is that if you flop, you are given a second chance." So long the venture is spear-headed by the PAP, it can afford to flop many times and still given a chance.   Read also: Sands guarded about Singapore's casino industry    Read More →